Eleanor L S Leavens1, Ellen Meier2, Alayna P Tackett3, Mary Beth Miller4, Noor N Tahirkheli5, Emma I Brett6, Dana M Carroll7, Leslie M Driskill5, Michael P Anderson8, Theodore L Wagener9. 1. Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA; Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA. 2. Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA; Bradley Hasbro Research Center, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 4. University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA. 5. Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 6. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA. 7. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 8. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 9. Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA; University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. Electronic address: theodore-wagener@ouhsc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Waterpipe (WP) tobacco smoking delivers many of the same harmful toxicants as cigarette smoking and is on the rise in the US. This study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of a brief personalized feedback intervention in affecting changes in WP smoking among current WP smokers. METHODS:Participants (N=109) were recruited as they entered WP lounges and completed a questionnaire and exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) testing before entering the WP lounge. Participants were cluster-randomized to assessment-only control (AOC) or intervention conditions. The intervention condition received health risk information and personalized feedback on pre- and post-WP sessioneCO levels. Participants completed a survey at the end of the WP session and at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Compared to control, the intervention was effective in increasing knowledge of WP-related harms, correcting risk perceptions, increasing importance of quitting WP smoking, and increasing confidence in ability to quit WP smoking at post-WP session (p<0.05). Differences were maintained for knowledge of WP-related harms, risk perceptions, and commitment to quitting WP at 3-month follow-up; however, no significant difference (p>0.05) was observed in WP smoking (i.e., days smoked and number of WPs smoked) at 3-month follow-up between the intervention (M=3.97days, SD=9.83; M=6.45 bowls, SD=19.60) and control conditions (M=3.32days, SD=5.24; M=3.49 bowls, SD=5.10). CONCLUSIONS: The current research supports the use of personalized feedback as a useful intervention method to increase commitment to quit WP, but suggests more intensive interventions may be necessary to achieve WP cessation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Waterpipe (WP) tobacco smoking delivers many of the same harmful toxicants as cigarette smoking and is on the rise in the US. This study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of a brief personalized feedback intervention in affecting changes in WP smoking among current WP smokers. METHODS:Participants (N=109) were recruited as they entered WP lounges and completed a questionnaire and exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) testing before entering the WP lounge. Participants were cluster-randomized to assessment-only control (AOC) or intervention conditions. The intervention condition received health risk information and personalized feedback on pre- and post-WP session eCO levels. Participants completed a survey at the end of the WP session and at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Compared to control, the intervention was effective in increasing knowledge of WP-related harms, correcting risk perceptions, increasing importance of quitting WP smoking, and increasing confidence in ability to quit WP smoking at post-WP session (p<0.05). Differences were maintained for knowledge of WP-related harms, risk perceptions, and commitment to quitting WP at 3-month follow-up; however, no significant difference (p>0.05) was observed in WP smoking (i.e., days smoked and number of WPs smoked) at 3-month follow-up between the intervention (M=3.97days, SD=9.83; M=6.45 bowls, SD=19.60) and control conditions (M=3.32days, SD=5.24; M=3.49 bowls, SD=5.10). CONCLUSIONS: The current research supports the use of personalized feedback as a useful intervention method to increase commitment to quit WP, but suggests more intensive interventions may be necessary to achieve WP cessation.
Authors: Wasim Maziak; Samer Rastam; Iman Ibrahim; Kenneth D Ward; Alan Shihadeh; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Isaac M Lipkus; Thomas Eissenberg; Rochelle D Schwartz-Bloom; Alexander V Prokhorov; Janet Levy Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Tamika D Gilreath; Adam Leventhal; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Jennifer B Unger; Tess Boley Cruz; Kiros Berhane; Jimi Huh; Robert Urman; Kejia Wang; Steve Howland; Mary Ann Pentz; Chih Ping Chou; Rob McConnell Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Iman Elfeddali; Catherine Bolman; Math J J M Candel; Reinout W Wiers; Hein de Vries Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Aruni Bhatnagar; Wasim Maziak; Thomas Eissenberg; Kenneth D Ward; George Thurston; Brian A King; Erin L Sutfin; Caroline O Cobb; Merlyn Griffiths; Larry B Goldstein; Mary Rezk-Hanna Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 29.690